Hansraj Gurjar S/O Sh. Ramgopal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the second bail application. It held that parity, by itself, is not the sole or determinative ground for granting bail. While considering parity, the Court must independently examine the individual role of the accused, the nature and gravity of allegations, and the material collected during investigation. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sagar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., emphasizing that parity cannot be applied mechanically and must focus on the role of the accused. The Court found that the petitioner's role was "different and substantially graver" than that of the co-accused, Narendra Choudhary, due to his alleged involvement in creating and operating fictitious firms, generating fake invoices and e-way bills, and facilitating clandestine movement of goods, leading to significant GST evasion. The Court also reiterated the principle that economic offences constitute a class apart, requiring a stricter approach due to their deep-rooted conspiracies, deliberate design for personal gain, and serious repercussions on the economy. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no substantial change in circumstances warranting interference with the earlier order rejecting bail, and the grant of bail to the co-accused did not entitle the petitioner to bail as a matter of right. The issue regarding the absence of a show cause notice was not explicitly decided but was implicitly rejected by the dismissal of the bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Hansraj Gurjar, is seeking a second bail application in connection with a case registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur, for offences under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(h), and 132(1)(l) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was arrested on August 13, 2025. His first bail application was dismissed on April 18, 2026. The current application is based on the subsequent grant of bail to a co-accused, Narendra Choudhary, by the Supreme Court on May 22, 2026, arguing parity. The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, the case relies solely on statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act without independent material, and he has been in custody for a considerable period. The prosecution alleges the petitioner is the principal architect of a fraudulent syndicate involved in fake firms, invoices, e-way bills, and Input Tax Credit evasion amounting to approximately Rs. 48,41,21,094.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity, given that a co-accused with a similar alleged role has been granted bail by the Supreme Court? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner's continued incarceration, given the prolonged period of custody and slow pace of trial, warrants grant of bail? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the proceedings initiated without a show cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act render the prosecution legally infirm? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues for parity with the co-accused, Narendra Choudhary, whose role is allegedly similar. He contends the case is based solely on statements recorded under coercion, lacking independent corroborative evidence. He also highlights his substantial period of incarceration, the slow progress of the trial, and the fact that the investigation is concluded with all evidence in possession of the agency. He further argues that the minimum punishment under Section 132(3) of the CGST Act has been exceeded and that the absence of a show cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 is a legal infirmity. Reliance is placed on cases like Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India and Vineet Jain vs. Union of India. Respondent's arguments: The respondent vehemently opposes the bail application, arguing that the petitioner's case is not similar to the co-accused, as the petitioner is the "principal architect and kingpin" of the fraudulent syndicate, with a graver and substantially different role. The respondent highlights the petitioner's active orchestration of fictitious firms, fake invoices, and e-way bills, leading to significant tax evasion. They contend that the petitioner's own statement, coupled with documentary and electronic evidence, establishes his direct involvement. They also argue that economic offences constitute a class apart requiring a stricter approach.